2013 Worlds Men LP | Page 56 | Golden Skate

2013 Worlds Men LP

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
I do not understand why you and Wallylutz keep bringing up what Denis Ten did or did not do five years ago. Or what he might or might not do five years in the future.

It's what he did at this competition that we should be discussing.

Taking the short program together with the long, Ten had the best competition. If the point totals say otherwise, then shame on the CoP.

Put it this way Math, if the skating order was a little different in that Ten skate prior to Chan's, I guarantee you his score would be a lot lower. D10 got a huge psychological bonus, nothing to do with skating. But that bonus is temporary and situational. Taking that out, looking strictly at his skating, he is not yet a Top 5material even if he did not double his Flip.

Sure, he may have skated better than most in an error filled competition. But you gotta ask, how did an error-filled S/S beat D/R in pairs when S/S failed to even get a single Triple credited in their SBS? All they did were SBS doubles + fall. Answer : S/S are so much more superior overall, individual elements notwithstanding. One thing is very consistent in judges' seat is that they look at what was put on the ice in that given competition but they also assessed the finer qualities which don't usually go out of the window just because the individual elements were missed. The latter is somewhat harder to assess especially for those who watch over scratchy / crappy internet feeds. This is why sometimes people think judges held up X skater over Y skater. While there is some truth to that, more often than not, it is the less visible qualities displayed that helped to hold these people up despite their visible errors. This is true since the 6.0 era and many former greats have been the beneficiaries of this such as Kwan and etc., including the one who tweeted "confused in Florida" - only if his memory is not so short that he was a skater without Quad in a world dominated by the 4 revolution jump. More recently, Kostner, Asada, Takahashi and Chan have all received such cushion as well.
 

Jackbox9999

Spectator
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
I find some of the comments less than illuminating is that it seems less about how they would change the system and more about how to "fix" Chan's win. No one can agree on what should be the priorities under the scoring system. It is impossible to create one that rewards clean + quads + triple axel + awsome ss + fantastic spins + great presentation. There are very few skaters that could reliably meet all these criteria.

Something has to give - under this iteration of COP they minimized the clean requirement, under previous iterations they minimized the quad. If they decide to place more value on "clean" programs, skaters will just sacrifice the jump that give them issues. Ie: Chan would keep the 3A just in short etc.
 

bekalc

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
And that is definitely a very valid point.

It's not the falls themselves that were an issue but rather how Chan has let them affect his performance. I have also felt that it was very subpar, his heart wasn't really in it and he wasn't fully committed to presenting the program. He did not skate to the top of his ability.

A case can definitely be made for Ten winning and personally I have also felt that he probably should have won (and I'd definitely prefer to see Ten on top of the podium).

However, I can also see how Chan's many exceptional qualities could have made up for his mistakes, giving him the gold.

It's great if there are opposing views and if people point out good and bad things about skaters' performances because it's not possible for one person to notice everything. I just feel frustrated by knee-jerk 'OMG he fell, he should lose, this is so stupid, judges are corrupt' reactions.

First of all if Patrick had fallen just once, I doubt anyone would have complained about his win. Nobody after all is complaining about V/T's win. What people are complaining about is the fact that Patrick had multiple falls in this program and then other glaring errors.

I can live with a fall if everything else is good or two small mistakes if everything else is good. I frankly felt that there was a strong case for Daisuke winning the Olympics. But I can't bear to see slopply executed programs get rewarded on things like P/E.

I have a hard time thinking how making a ton of glaring errors doesn't effect your overall performance, I'm sorry it at the very least affects the overall impression of your performance. One fall I can live with but multiples-no.

Nobody's complaining that Patrick was on the podium. Based on his short that's fair.

I don't want to see people getting medals for easy programs, but surely there has to be a balance. The system right now seems to encourage people to pack in overwhelmingly difficulty throughout regardless how well the difficulty can actually be executed.

Why can't the system encourage a balance? Reward the skater who performs the program that best combines difficulty and execution. It is that person who should win.

Ten combined this the best at this competition.

The judges could have easily given Patrick PCS in lets say around 84 overall. Said PCS would still reward him for his good qualities but also showing the performance wasn't up to his great standards. That would have been fair.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Essentially the judges are saying, I can see that you have great Skating skills, even though you fell. By that logic, they may aswell go to the practice sessions and mark the jumps based on the overall capabilities of the skaters.

But that's exactly what it is. He does have the best skating skills in the world even though he fell. Why do you find it frustrating?

Figure skating will never be just about how somebody delivers on a particular evening. It's not that kind of sport. There are many different skills and they are acquired over years and years of practice and some of them will stay relatively constant throughout different performances. That's the way it is.

I can't even begin to lament Joubert's placement, because again, I understand how it happened within the framework. However, all that tells me is that the framework is flawed.

You can't blame the system for Joubert's personal failures. It's not a secret how the system works and he needs to learn to play it better.

All codes and rules need to be tweaked in order to become solid and reliable, ISU need to learn from this.

They are tweaking the system all the time. There's been changes after each season and I wouldn't be surprised if they did increase the fall penalties slightly after this season.

I think that not only does the corridor does need to go, there needs to be a better framework for marking PCS. But corridor will never go because it would make judges look like they are completely clueless (because there would be so much variation in the marks suddenly).

And it never will possible to please everyone, whatever the changes. Chan won here partly because the quads he landed extremely well were worth so many points (which is something a lot of people have argued for).

Something has to give - under this iteration of COP they minimized the clean requirement, under previous iterations they minimized the quad. If they decide to place more value on "clean" programs, skaters will just sacrifice the jump that give them issues. Ie: Chan would keep the 3A just in short etc.

And this sums up the issue really well. You can never please everybody and there are serious consequences to any potential changes.

I mean if there was a massive deduction for falls introduced, next year everybody would be complaining about the system being stupid and wrong because nobody does difficult jumps any more.
 

jenaj

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Country
United-States
Something has to give - under this iteration of COP they minimized the clean requirement, under previous iterations they minimized the quad. If they decide to place more value on "clean" programs, skaters will just sacrifice the jump that give them issues. Ie: Chan would keep the 3A just in short etc.

But Patrick's mistakes were not on the quads. He made errors that a World Champion shouldn't have made--maybe one popped jump is excusable or one wonky landing but not both, with two falls.
 

bekalc

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
I mean if there was a massive deduction for falls introduced, next year everybody would be complaining about the system being stupid and wrong because nobody does difficult jumps any more.

Well I think this is a problem in ladies and would like to see the value of jumps rewarded more.

However personally why not allow the judges with P/E get to evaluate the overall performance and with that understanding have it be an evaluation of the entire thing. I.e the technical content and how well its done.

For example there could be directives that skates who are doing overwhelming less difficult program should perhaps get some docked on the P/E score. One could say Lepisto doubling all those jumps was not good technical performance and clearly was having execution issues in 2010. Why not hit her there? And also hit those who go out there and fall all over the place.

P/E could be used to reward those who shockingly enough provide the most balanced programs in terms of difficulty, execution, and artistic value. How crazy would that be??

And as for impossible to find a skater who gives everything cleanish programs, good spins, steps and jumps, quads. Well Ten provided us this. He wasn't perfect it wasn't the most beautiful performance I had ever seen. But it was a great all around skate. That's enough for me.
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
I do see what you are saying and I agreed with your defense of Kostners scores in the short program. The thing about Chans performance though was it was not just one fall, it was 4 very disruptive falls or stumbles which were not only glaring technical flaws, but greatly took away and took all zest and energy out of the overall performance. Of course one or even two fall(s) that did not mar the performance could be easily forgiven and should be overcome by other strong things about the performance. You could tell he was rattled by the increasing number of mistakes and it affected the quality of his other elements and overall skating in the 2nd half of the performance too, yet not reflected at all in the scores.

I do respect your views and detailed analysis though and that you have done on all the disciplines here though, and do see where you are coming from.
I've got to disagree with both you and Ziggy.

-The problem with Ziggy's approach, that for some reason all elements, or the failures thereof, should be qualitatively equivalent, notwithstanding quantitative differences in scoring values (I must confess that the justifying principle, or fundamental ground, for this escapes me) is that it leads exactly to the kind of reductio ad absurdum result that is Chan's victory. It doesn't pass the sniff-tests of both common sense and intuition for the vast majority of observers, it seems to me.

I repeat the principle that seems sensible, coherent, and self-consistent to me: technical elements do not have an impact on the performance aspects of a skate, except in the cases where the technical element either heightens or detracts from the arc, design, structure, or mood of the program. In my view, the clear fall is the most obvious example of a technical phenomenon that plays double duty as a performance consideration.

-The problem with your approach excusing some transgressions (eg Caro's SP fall) while not excusing others (eg Patricks errors) is that the potential for arbitrariness in judgment is high. As I'm sure you know, one fall in the SP is roughly equivalent to two falls in the LP. So, should an LP performance with two falls result in no penalty to PCS, while 3 falls trigger a repercussion? On what basis of principle? That two falls did not disrupt the arc and flow of the program enough, while a higher number would? Again, on what basis?

-I would argue that it should be recognized that any obvious fall, must logically and necessarily be seen as having created a disruption, and therefore PCS ought to be impacted. There is, in other words, no such thing as a clear fall that has no performance impact; the idea itself is clearly absurd. Scoring should therefore reflect this truth. Further, to minimize arbitrariness, I suggest that the corrective that ought to be considered is to penalize clear falls equally, across the board.

If there is more than one fall, the penalty does not have to increase in simple linear fashion. One could argue that each incremental fall or program-disrupting mistake causes relatively greater damage than the previous one, for example, and set the guidelines accordingly. The key points are the conceptual recognition of the damage that the fall(s) create in terms of performance quality, and to institute a scoring adjustment that makes at least a good-faith effort at limiting arbitrary judgment.

It's possible that there is scope for nuance, eg if the skater does not make the effort to recover as quickly as possible, and/or allows the effects of the fall to linger after the program continues, then further penalties can be prescribed.
 

parma

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
No wonder the sport is dying. Forget about attracting new fans to the sport. Who would watch a sport that produces results such as the one in the Men's LP tonight.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
bekalc and Robeye - I totally see where you are both coming from and I personally think that quality should be rewarded over difficulty.

It's extremely difficult to strike the right balance, though. I would definitely support changes in this respect but very cautious ones so we don't end up with no risks being taken.

And as for impossible to find a skater who gives everything cleanish programs, good spins, steps and jumps, quads. Well Ten provided us this. He wasn't perfect it wasn't the most beautiful performance I had ever seen. But it was a great all around skate. That's enough for me.

It was a really safe, bland, unimaginative, generic program though. Both SP and FS. He skated well and it flowed and it was pleasing to the eye but meh.

It goes both ways. If you want the judges to mark correctly and not overmark Chan just because he's Chan, then they should also mark Ten correctly and not mark him highly on things like TR and CH just because he skated well and landed his jumps.

And whilst people are saying Chan should have been trashed on PE for a performance that weak (which is true), Ten did not deserve very high PE either since he didn't extend his movements properly, didn't reflect the character of the music with his movement that well and didn't show a lot of projection or attack. It was all a little lukewarm.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
And this sums up the issue really well. You can never please everybody and there are serious consequences to any potential changes.

I mean if there was a massive deduction for falls introduced, next year everybody would be complaining about the system being stupid and wrong because nobody does difficult jumps any more.

To me, this says that the problem is not with the annual tweaks but with the basic concept itself. If figure skating is not "that kind of sport'" (the kind where your performance is measured according to what you deliver on that particular evening), then why go through the charade of assigning points as if it is?

Here is where 6.0 is better, IMHO. Ordinal scoring says with honesty and candor, this skater won because a majority of judges felt that he skated the best, in terms of technical competence and performance values. No smoke and mirrors. People are free to disagree with the judges if they want to.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
To me, this says that the problem is not with the annual tweaks but with the basic concept itself. If figure skating is not "that kind of sport'" (the kind where your performance is measured according to what you deliver on that particular evening), then why go through the charade of assigning points as if it is?

Because otherwise all those different skills that make up figure skating don't end up getting recognised and you have a situation where only a few things count.
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Chan's PCS is inflated.

SS. 9 max. He's good, but he didn't show it last night. It was messy, he didn't show control.
TR. 7. If you do a lot of transitions, but you failed the element, then the transitions shouldn't count as much. They made you fall.
P/E. 7. Was not performing, execution was messy. The whole program was painful to watch. That don't deserve 9+ or even 8+.
IN. 8.5. It was a good interpretation (not counting all the mistakes)
CH. 9. Great choreography. He did all of his choreographed moves.

D10
SS. 8. I thought he was smooth, and effortless.
TR. 7. Not much going on.
PE. 9. Clearly the performance of the night. And my heart was stuck in my throat for the most part. It was satisfying watching him.
IN. 8. Generic interpretation
CH. 8. Generic choreography. Obviously better than Max and others who get high 7. So 8 is appropriate.

So total, Chan would get 40.5 *2 = 81 for PCS
D10 would get 40*2 = 80 for PCS

D10 should win. Both PCS were inflated to insane level, D10 is never 87+ PCS skater. Chan was a mess.
 

merrywidow

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
So happy for Max Aaron! What an athlete. I'm still laughing at his hitting the boards the way he did & instead of collapsing on the ice he simply dug his left skate into the ice & pushed off. Max is exciting & fun. He is a breath of fresh air for US men's skating. As to the argument as to who should have won? I'm fine with Chan's win. I'm in awe of the depth of his edges & I'm not surprised that he can't always control them. Maybe the ISU should reinstate the old figures portion of the competition?
 

cheerio2

On the Ice
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
wallylutz said:
This is true since the 6.0 era and many former greats have been the beneficiaries of this such as Kwan and etc.

I dunno about that...when has the Kween fallen twice and won against people who were totally clean? For that matter, she was frustrated twice at the Olys by newcomers. And she went clean at the 1998 Olys too! That's what sucks about the current system...it's even more corrupt than the old. Under 6.0, judges had a harder time justifying unfairness. With CoP, they can hide it under the guise of a complicated point scheme that most people don't understand.

I think a scoring system can only be fair if it's possible for an unknown to burst onto the scene, have the skate of their lives, and win, especially if the established skaters falter. Under CoP, that's just not possible, and it's really unfair. I don't care how much artistry someone has, this is still a sport and if they make major mistakes they should not win, period.
 

LeReveur

On the Ice
Joined
May 1, 2010
I dunno about that...when has the Kween fallen twice and won against people who were totally clean? For that matter, she was frustrated twice at the Olys by newcomers. And she went clean at the 1998 Olys too! That's what sucks about the current system...it's even more corrupt than the old. Under 6.0, judges had a harder time justifying unfairness. With CoP, they can hide it under the guise of a complicated point scheme that most people don't understand.

I think a scoring system can only be fair if it's possible for an unknown to burst onto the scene, have the skate of their lives, and win, especially if the established skaters falter. Under CoP, that's just not possible, and it's really unfair. I don't care how much artistry someone has, this is still a sport and if they make major mistakes they should not win, period.

I think the only way "Chan", "artistry", and "much" should be in the same sentence should be: "Chan doesn't have much artistry." :-D

Getting back into the flow of comments, I stand by my earlier comment of scratching this point piling system and finding a way to give greater weight to the long program. Messing up in the long program used to mean, well, messing up. Rarely would the winner of the long program lose the title under 6.0. Why not heavily weigh "being ahead of someone" in the LP (and SP, too) instead of having a system where someone may win the LP but only do it by 0.01 and lose the title to someone who was 0.05 ahead in the SP. I still feel that being better than someone in the LP should more strongly place you vis-a-vis that person overall.
 

StellaCampo

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
I'm completely saturated with the posts and viewing and don't know what to make of this competition. I don't know if anyone else is interested, but, I for one, have been more interested in the variabilityof the judges' marks (in particluar PCS) than the marks themselves. So I calculated the 'standard deviation', which is a measure of variability. The higher the SD, the more varied the judges' scores.

The results below indicate that the judges are pretty unanimous (relatively speaking) regarding evaluation of Chan's PCS. Re Hanyu, on the other hand, the judges seem to be more divided. Interestingly, judges seem to be (relatively) more divided about Dai's choreo/composition and Interpretation.
I hope it helps...

['trimmed' means excluding max and min points, as in the protocol)
trimmed standard deviation (measure of variability of points among judges)
chan ten hanyu javier mura aaron kevin dai
ss 0.13 0.27 0.41 0.12 0.20 0.28 0.12 0.17
tl 0.17 0.35 0.46 0.19 0.24 0.48 0.24 0.27
pe 0.24 0.35 0.28 0.32 0.30 0.46 0.17 0.37
cc 0.25 0.48 0.59 0.30 0.19 0.57 0.28 0.43
in 0.22 0.28 0.38 0.32 0.13 0.53 0.19 0.47

trimmed average (as in the protocol - pls excuse slight rounding difference)
chan ten hanyu javier mura aaron kevin dai
ss 9.11 8.54 8.25 8.43 7.75 7.61 7.82 8.54
tl 8.96 8.43 7.75 8.18 7.39 7.11 7.61 8.21
pe 8.61 8.89 7.86 8.36 7.79 7.50 7.71 8.46
cc 9.00 8.86 8.14 8.79 7.57 7.39 7.93 8.50
in 8.96 8.86 8.00 8.89 7.61 7.54 7.82 8.79
PCS 89.29 87.14 80.00 85.29 76.21 74.29 77.79 85.00
 

Fruit Loops

On the Ice
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
So much has been said already so not really sure what to add.

Saw Max Aaron for the first time last night and really liked him! Yes, there were not a lot of transitions but I don't mind emptier programs if the skater can be entertaining. I think there is a difference between artistry and showmanship. I like Joubert for the same reason. It's a shame about his downgrades and the zayak rule.

I wish Ten would have won. He was endearing and I found myself rooting for him even though I haven't seen him perform before. He's just so likeable. I like Patrick but don't like when wins have to have asterisks beside the name. His performance last night is just so odd. He opened so beautifully but then....

I certainly don't blame Patrick for his marks. He did seem embarrassed afterwards. But yeah...what is the guy supposed to do? He can't say "Oh, the judges were way out of line to give me those marks". I wonder if skaters still have some fear to speak out against the judges. I mean, it would be like biting the hand that feeds him.

I am reminded when Jeffrey Buttle won the 2004 FCC with a quite flawed skate. I remember him sitting in the K&C with a very confused look on his face when the marks came up and then shrugging his shoulders while looking into the camera.

I just wish more of the men would have skated cleanly or more clean than they did.
 

amc987

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
The results last night were really unfortunate, as so many have already said. To be fair, Patrick Chan's artistry in the FS was better than I've ever seen it. Good on him for continuing with his transitions and choreography in spite of his jump errors. There is a smoothness with which he interweaves his jump elements and connecting steps that's impressive to see. That said, he was way overscored in the short program- IMO you shouldn't be able to get a world record score with jumps that look labored and have wonky landings. He should have had 93, or maybe 94, but definitely not 98. I also think Chan was overscored tonight. There is no way you should be able to get 9+s in transitions, interpretation, choreography, and performance execution with as many technical glitches as he had. No matter how much a skater tries not to let mistakes impact their performance, falls, popped jumps and awkward landings are disruptive to the general aura of a program. As a viewer, I tend to lose interest/ have less belief in whatever the skater is trying to portray if they keep falling and climbing back up every 30 seconds. The transitions exiting jumps can't be good if you're constantly picking yourself up off the ice after you've tried to land and the transitions into jumps can't be valued highly if they contributed to your fall/pop/etc. Unless he was trying to make the audience believe he was a skater jumping in the air, rotating 3 or 4 times, and falling, I don't see how Chan's presentation was effective. He should've had high 7s/ low 8s maximum for everything except skating skills (which are justifiably higher).

I think Ten was overscored on PCS. He did well tonight, but to me he's in the same league as a Fernandez or a Hanyu presentation-wise- a wonderful skater committed to choreography and interpretation, but not spellbinding like Takahashi or Jeremy Abbott. I think 9s are a bit high for him as well. But because of inflation, the judges had to give Denis credit for what he did somehow. He also had the performance of his life, technically and artistically.

Ten should be the gold medalist and Chan should be second. The rest of the placements seemed okay to me, but I'll admit that I didn't watch Reynolds or Joubert.

Also, can I just say that I think Chan's attitude is as bad as ever. I saw his comments about jumps not being the end-all be-all and that "skating reflects your entire week and short program". Maybe he's being honest, but I think it's douchey to claim that you were anything but fortunate to win if you skated the way he did tonight. And he's "saving it for the Olympics"? Really?!? Ugh.
 
Top